From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject International development (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Cooperatives (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cooperatives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Link to Neoconservatism[edit]

In the "See also" section, there's a link to Neoconservatism. I'm not sure why that's there. I've found no other resources on the web linking Neoconservatism and micro-credit neither favorably or negatively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjwilli (talkcontribs) 17:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention of[edit]

Although I am not qualified to provide an authoritative summary, it seems desirable to mention Kiva as an important and unique conduit for microloans. They have received considerable attention recently from major press outlets and public figures. I just found a Wikipedia entry here [1], but it is not linked to in the microcredit article. Gpetty 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Using microcredit in Christian ministry[edit]

I know this isn't completely related, but here is a guide for using microcredit in Christian ministry.

Kingdom Business The Ministry of Promoting Economic Activity

Improvement Drive[edit]

Grameen Bank is nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. You can support the article with your vote.--Fenice 08:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent additions[edit]

The edits on October 9 by Mark are not exactly encyclopedic, and IMO, quite POV (not to mention that they're signed). The task of extricating the facts from the opinions seems quite complicated to me; can someone more well-versed in this topic help out? Johnleemk | Talk 14:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Documentation of permission[edit]


   I would like to request permission to publish the "Year of
Microcredit" logo in the contents of an encyclopedia article available

While I believe I can use the logo by the terms of "fair use" as
outlined in U.S. copyright law, I am seeking permission in respect,
and to make sure that it is available to be viewed legally in any
country it may be viewed from.

Because of the nature of wikipedia, I cannot sign the waiver of
liability, but Im not sure that it applies anyways. Wikipedia is an
online, free and open encyclopedia edited by its online community
volunteers. More information about Wikipedia can be found at

    Thank you,
    Andrew Somerville
to me
Oct 28

Finally - I do not see where you would put the logo for the Year and a
question - would you also include a paragraph on the Year?      
Andy Somerville    
to christina.barr.
 Oct 28

As far as the logo is concerned, I would most likely place the logo
near the top of the article, as well as in the article stub
specifically about the Year(2). I would be willing to write a
paragraph about the year to integrate into the article and place the
logo nearby. Alternatively if you would like more control over the
matter you or I could integrate a paragraph prepared by UNDP.
Understand however that future editors may rearrange the article and
so the position in the article cannot be guaranteed except in that you
or I may again change it at any point.

      Many Thanks,
      Andrew Somerville
to me
Oct 28
Dear Andy -

Thanks - that would be great - please go ahead - also the Economist will be
coming out with a survey next week (November 4 issue) on microfinance that
you might like to link to as well).  Please go ahead and write a para on the
year - or you can cut and paste the opening para on our website -

Best Christina


I saw the thread on the Year of Microcredit logo, but I don't think the logo should be on this page. The UN Year is now over, but more importantly, having the logo of one organization for a definition is not neutral, especially since so many organizations are and have been involved in microcredit for a very long time.

Move or split[edit]


#this article should be moved to Microfinance (which currently directs here), or

#it should be split and Microcredit should deal more specifically with microcredit.

I favor the first option. Either way, we need to develop the info on micro savings, insurance and related topics. --Singkong2005 03:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I see it's been fixed. --Singkong2005 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference needed[edit]

References are needed for the following paragraph which has been removed from the criticism section. It should be noted that information contained in this paragraph should also be scrutinized and edited for content (in addition to referenced) given that it was added by an anonymous user whose only other edit seems to be vandalism:

There is also debate surrounding the sustainability and viability of enterprises funded through micro credit. Critics say that a paradox exists in that the poorest people can do little with the credit outside of sustenance activity yet they are the ones who receive the most loans. They suggest that much of the lauded entrepreneurial activity which they are ascribed is usually based on thin margin industries which face high diminishing market returns. Thereby in many cases microcredit does little more than smooth consumption over periods of cyclical or unexpected crises. Critics of microcredit cite the fact that U.S. consumer debt levels topped $2 trillion dollars for the first time in 2004, up 33% from four years before as evidence that easy credit does not necessarily guarantee freedom from poverty.


Hello, can an Administrator please remove the international year of microcredit logo? The YOM happened in 2005 and has ceased to exist. Furthermore it's just one organization of many that have been working in the field of microcredit/microfinance and shouldn't be the only one listed here as reference. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:39, 20 June 2006.

Both BRAC and FH Abed should be recognised in this article[edit]

BRAC started providing microfinance in 1974, and have helped lift millions of Bangladeshis out of poveryt as a result. Therefore both BRAC and it's founder FH Abed should be mentioned on this page.

Deleting MFI profiles[edit]

In an effort to eliminate redundancy, I suggest the following:

As all the microfinance institutions listed in this article have articles of their own, and because their articles are more carefully edited and of broader scope, I suggest reducing the profiles of notable MFI's here to a numbered list of links. At most, I would include vital stats like founding date, areas of operation, date of disbursement of first microloan, etc.

I haven't made any serious edits to this article, so I feel unjustified in taking it upon myself to make this significant change. Is there someone who has written the majority of this article who has an opinion on this potential edit?

Jcoravos 20:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for deleting, but I wouldn't bother with the list, a category would be the appropriate way to link all these orgs together with the main article. Take them out and start focusing the article on what microcredit is, its history, its impact and its role in the world. -- Siobhan Hansa 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Women's World Banking[edit]

I've just added another organization (redlined) to the History section. WWB seems like a significant international pioneer body from 1976, even though we obviously don't want an endless list of pioneers. It has also had a recognized role in UN work from at least 1994 (e.g. Women's World Banking Re-Convenes UN Expert Group on Women and Finance. --VSerrata 11:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

On Moving BARD to Microfinance[edit]

The BARD project was not the 'first microcredit' initiative in the developing world. Microcredit was operating in Jamaica in the 1930s and even in Bangladesh, at the initiative of Father Charles J. Young, in 1953. Some of the resulting credit unions are still operating. The BARD project is very interesting from a historical perspective, but mainly because of its impact on the thinking of the founders of the microcredit movement that emerged around Grameen Bank and BRAC in the early 1970s. Although Grameen has subsequently moved to a broader microfinance platform, at the time of their founding, both Grameen and BRAC were focused on microcredit to the exclusion of other microfinancial services. The BARD project was not very successful, and Yunus and Abed (among others) drew lessons from it that were important to their work (see Lessons from the Comilla Experience). So I'd vote for leaving it right where it is, contextualizing it and correcting some of the inflated assertions about it.Brett epic 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The above information is misleading. Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan started microcredit scheme at Comilla Academy in early 1960s. At this academy it was proved that microcredit scheme was workable. There is enough publications available on the subject, for example:

Book entitled: Rural Development in Action: The Comprehensive Experiment at Comilla, East Pakistan by Arthur F. Raper, Published by Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA

The following articles are available on Dr. Khan's web site (

"Dr. Akhter Hameed Khan - The Pioneer of Microcredit" by Nasim Yousaf

"7th death anniversary: A tribute to Dr. Akhter Hameed Khan" by Nasim Yousaf —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with all these claims which are basically about being microcredit's "first" or "pioneer" is that none of the sources we seem to come up with are comprehensive looks at the history. They just concentrate on a particular project. At the moment the way the article is written, concentrating on the activities of individual people and institutions as a narrative structure, we really set ourselves up for these sorts of disputes. And encourage people to add in their own "favorite" person or organization. I suggest until we can get good sources that layout the history and relative influences properly we re-write to remove most mention of individuals and instead concentrate on explaining general models that are/have been used. -- SiobhanHansa 23:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is only that the individuals and organizations mentioned are pets of the people who mention them, and no systematic effort has been made to look at the larger picture. The whole of this article is highly misleading and really just plucks a few random trees out of a much larger forest, leaving the reader no idea that the forest is there, or how to get from one randomly plucked tree to the next. No one has made even a slight effort to write this article properly. Instead of disputing who was first, people who are seriously interested in this topic should be doing the research needed to give an overview of the whole forest. I won't do it myself (microfinance seems far more interesting than just microcredit) but I can refer them to key sources if anyone wants to take it on.Brett epic (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Listing key sources here would be great Brett. Thanks for the offer. -- SiobhanHansa 12:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New York Providence Fund[edit]

I tried to find a reference online for the New York Providence Fund, which apparently has some historical link to microcredit, but couldn't find one. Anybody know more? --VinceBowdren (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Skywriter[edit]

The current version of the Forbes section does not sound like an advertisement; the advertising was taken out months ago. But why is that of 50 MFIs identified by Forbes, only the Indian ones are named? Either name the top 10 or don't name them. And why is it that the ranking of MFIs by the MIX is not included or referenced? (Maybe this is still advertising for Forbes?) This section, like the whole article, is grossly unbalanced and unencyclopedic. It is the product of several years of scattershot entries by people who want to convey a little part of the microcredit world (their MFI, their international NGO, their country, etc.) but have never made a commitment to convey the bigger picture of global microcredit.Brett epic (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


The phrase "to the unemployed" has been removed and then added back in to the first sentence of the article: "Microcredit is the extension of very small loans (microloans) to the unemployed, to poor entrepreneurs and to others living in poverty.".

Unemployed implies people seeking employment, whereas these loans target those who are or are seeking to be self-employed as discussed in the second paragraph. These loans are not designed to help pay for necessities for poor people, but rather are for people who can start income generating businesses and later repay the loan. I think this can better be described starting with the first sentence by removing mention of "unemployed" and "others living in poverty", as we can more specifically say "poor entrepreneurs and others living in poverty seeking to become entrepreneurs" as these are not handed out to people just for being unemployed or in poverty like charity.

I would recommend the first sentence reading: "Microcredit is the extension of very small loans (microloans) to poor entrepreneurs and others living in poverty seeking to become entrepreneurs." or something along those lines. Anythingapplied (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to simply state it as "small loans to entrepreneurs who don't have adequate financing to start, or continue to operate, a business"? BTW: I was the one to re-add the bit about "unemployed" because the text was removed anonymously and without explanation. Mindmatrix 13:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I like where your going, but, to be nit picky, "An entrepreneur is a person who has possession of an enterprise, or venture". So someone wishing to start a business should not be called one. I am trying to come up with a good way of saying "those that own business and those that wish to start them" and still use the word entrepreneur, though only applying it to the first half.
We also should mention poverty of these recipiants. The loan sizes are often no more than $25 or $50, which in many countries would be a pointless loan amount since you could ask a friend for that or earn that in a day begging on the street.
How about "Microcredit is the extension of very small loans (microloans) to those in poverty that wish to establish or continue self-employment or other financial and business services."
The double "or" makes it sound klunky though. Anythingapplied (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll come back to comment later, but for now I'll note the Wiktionary definitions for entrepreneur (see English noun, entry 2) and entrepreneurship. Mindmatrix 20:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
How about "...small loans (microloans) to those in poverty designed to spur entrepreneurship..."? Mindmatrix 20:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
That works great. It is short, to the point, accurate, and covers what needs to be said in the first sentince. Lets go with that. Anythingapplied (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. Mindmatrix 17:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Every one[edit]

I am looking for help in micorfinance and like minded friends to help me in microfinance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grs24 (talkcontribs) 05:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Akhter Hameed Khan[edit]

If some editor wants to mention Dr. Akhter Hameed Khan in the article then please do it properly with reputable source describing his role/relevance for micro credits. Also it seems to be somewhat inappropriate to start the article with him and note that within the normal article text there should be only internal links (links within wikipedia), external links are listed in a separate section called external link or as footnotes (ref-tags).--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is to be noted, Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan started microcredit and microfinance scheme at Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development. Prof.Yunus started it later.There are enough books out there to verify this. For example:

The Works of Akhter Hameed Khan, Published by Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development

Rural Development in Action: The Comprehensive Experiment at Comilla, East Pakistan by Arthur F. Raper, Published by Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA,

The below mentioned articles (available at also provide enough information and sources on the subject:

1) "Dr. Akhter Hameed Khan - The Pioneer of Microcredit" 2) "7th death anniversary: A tribute to Dr. Akhter Hameed Khan"

websites are not reputable resources and the fact that you spammed the article earlier isn't really furthering your case either. Provide a proper reputable source (a book on economics or a peer reviewed economy journal) then the information can be added otherwise it won't. Also note that the proper source needs to be by a third person crediting Khan and not a book by Khan himself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I took a look at both articles referenced on the website and imho they are by no means good enough to justify your claim. Moreover what was actually tried at Comilla project seems to cooperative/communiy banking, which is hardly an invention by Khan, you find those in 19th century Europe already. You may credit Khan for his work in Comilla and that he possibly has influenced Yunus, but styling him into "the pioneer" or "inventor" of microcredit is not justified.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors help is required. Kmhkmh has no knowledge of Dr. Khan's contribution. He seems to have not read even one book about his contribution. If he has, he must give references with page numbers. He has failed to accept sources I have given. He is biased and wants to take away credit from Dr. Khan. His explanations is enough to understand that he lacks knowledge about Comilla Co-operative program. He needs to acquire enough knowledge before he can start editing such pages. Dr. Khan in his book has not taken credit for his contribution. Dr. Khan has been awarded so many award for his various contributions. He has refused to accept articles (well researched) and books.

Your edit is still unappropriate - a couple of points regarding that:

  • Do not use the website for claims that is not reputable source. If you want to use the newspaper articles, please cite them properly (author, title, newspaper, edition/date)
  • At least the newspaper articles you've given do not sufficiently justify your claim. Imho they can be at best used as secondary sources (notice their style). To give a very crude somewhat exaggerated analogon. If some newspaper writes about the sighting of a flying saucer, you cannot use the article as "proof" or reputable source to claim in a wikipedia article that flying saucers do exist.
  • The "new" concept of microcredits (and the hype) is commonly associated with Yunus and the Grameen bank (as pioneers, innovators, founders, initiators, etc.) and not Khan. The Britannica entry does not mention Khan nor do most books or journal/newspaper articles dealing with the topic. Hence is is unappropriate to insert Khan into the leading introduction not to mentioned your line was inconsistent with the rest of the article.
  • It is correct that Khan's Comilla project for the countryside did involve credits to the poor population as well, but that does not make it automatically a micro-credit in the "new sense", instead you can see it in the line of union banks, farming cooperatives with their own banks and similar things, that have existed in the West since the 19th century. If you extend paragraph giving an historic overview of all sort of things that can be labelled as micro-credits in the broadest sense rather than the particular Grameen version, then it might be appropriate to include Khan there.

Please refrain from adding your Khan-line in the lead section without reaching an editorial consensus here first. If you keep adding it nonetheless ,I will request that your IP gets blocked again. Also to be frank given the general circumstances of your claim and the your past edits i do not trust your assessment in this issue at all. However if you think i got it all wrong and that I'm maybe too clueless on the subject, feel to request a 3rd opinion or comments from trustworthy editors. If they confirm your point of view or you can come up with reputable source beyond doubt, I'll apologize for being wary and withdraw my objections, but until then please refrain from any edits in that matter. Also please sign your postings (you can do that as IP as well), so that ypur statement can be clearly identified and the conversation becomes easier to follow for others.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are not convincing. Your credentials on the subject are questionable. The sources given are enough and legitimate. Prof. Yunus was a disciple of Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan. He used Dr. Khan's ideas to start Grameen Bank. You are deleting Dr. Khan's name altogether, that speaks of your mindset. You are bent upon taking away credit from Dr. Khan. Editors help has already been requested, hopefully, they would look into it and resolve this issue. Do not delete it, thanks.

Editors before you make a decision, please look at the number of awards he received. His Comilla Cooperative scheme was based on microcredit and microfinance. After success at Comilla, Dr Khan applied the said scheme at Orangi Pilot Project ( To conclude, I would say, Dr. Khan's poverty alleviation projects were based on microcredit and microfinance.

Kmhkmh is deleting without waiting for editors to resolve the issue.

The problem is with your edit since it does not match reputable sources (such as britannica and all other sources in the article other than your added website). Now please refrain from adding it again until the issue is resolved. If you (despite the contradicting reputable sources) turn out to be right, then your line can be added again, but until then it stays out.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

All Sources given by me are credible. Once again, Dr. Khan's poverty alleviation projects were based on microcredit and microfinance. This is the biggest proof one must look at before deleting info. Kmhkmh arguments are flimsy and lack credibility. Kmhkmh is engaged in excessive spamming and distorting facts. It is deplorable the info is deleted without providing answers. I request knowledgeable editors to look into the issue before siding with Kmhkmh.

I have semi protected the page to stop anon IP spamming. Please stop, you aren't going to get much sympathy for your cause if you keep edit warring and add in personal attack on those who revert you. I suggest you go and study WP:RS in some depth before claiming your sources are good enough and then start by convincing people on the talk page given your track record is somewhat patchy. --BozMo talk 20:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Attention UTC:

Thank you for your comments.

As mentioned before, microcredit and microfinance were part of Dr. Khan's poverty alleviation projects. He was given various awards for his achievements. His services have been globally recognized. It is regretted that his life long services are being discredited by deleting his name. Please note, Grameen Bank was established much later. Once again, I request editors to look into it and try to resolve it, thanks.

I have nothing against Kmhkmh.

The only thing which deleting his name signifies is that you have not yet produced a reliable source to support these claims. Please read WP:RS and come back with an article about him in a serious newspaper or similar. --BozMo talk 08:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have given all the sources and information. Editors should go through these credible sources. If Wikepedia does not consider these sources/awards credible then it is hard to resolve this issue. Also please keep in mind the sources being used on Wikepedia. The sources given are most reliable. Besides that Dr. Khan’s works (including microcredit and microfinance) are globally known. Also keep in mind, most of the pages on Wikipedia do not meet WP:RS criteria.

There is also the question of establishing not just Khan's link to microfinance the notability of the link but also that he is sufficiently notable in the context of Microfinance to warrant inclusion in this article. As far as I can see we have not even got close to establishing this. --BozMo talk 12:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Added my previous comments:

Argument is not well taken. Grameen Bank came much after Comilla project. Please do not open Pandora's box.

Does blocking me or deleting comments help? Prof Yunus took the idea from Comilla project and started Grameen Bank. Anyone who knows about Comilla Project would agree with me. I once again, request, do not open Pandora's box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you simply did not understand the objections or whether you intentionally irgnore te arguments above. The issue is not with Khan's achievement in general nor with Comilla project and its use of credits nor with Yunus learning from the comilla project. The issue is with claiming that any of these justify the claim that Khan was the inventor of microcredits, in my opinion and apparently in the opinion of most reputative sources it does not. Hence it is inappropriate to have your line in the article lead. And it is even more inappropriate to simply ignore the objections of other editors/authors of the article and even admins.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The matter remains unresolved. Editor's well versed with Comilla cooperative scheme are requested to look into this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Microcredit did exist previously, but on a very small scale. It was Dr. Khan who brought the concept to the world stage and proved that it was a workable model. Therefore, to state that microcredit “originated” with Grameen Bank, as is currently stated in the article, is inaccurate and misleading. Thus, the article would be incomplete without Dr. Khan’s major contributions to the field. To make this point clearer, I can modify my original sentence to read as follows: “Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan pioneered microcredit through the Comilla cooperative program at Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development (previously known as Pakistan Academy for Rural Development) in the early 1960s. Professor Yunus later used these principles to establish Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Prof. Yunus’ Grameen Bank in Bangladesh stems from Dr. Khan’s Comilla co-operatives (also known as Comilla Model / Approach) within the Comilla Academy (now known as Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development). To clarify, this is not to discredit Prof. Yunus’ great achievements in establishing the Grameen Bank, but this is simply to bring forth the fact that the microcredit and microfinance models were formally originated at the Comilla Academy. Below are two more references in this regard:

1. "The village small cooperative loan system set up through Comilla was a forerunner of the Grameen Bank, now considered a major breakthrough in terms microcredit" Source: Foreign Aid and Foreign Policy: Lessons for the Next Half-Century by Louis A. Picard, Robert Groelsema, Terry F. Buss. Page 310. Publisher: M.E. Sharpe (September 15, 2007). M.E. Shape is a publisher of reference books, textbooks, journals in the social sciences and humanities, including titles in economics, management and public administration, history, and literature.

2. "The first micro-credit initiatives were introduced in Bangladesh with the Comilla efforts of the 1960s and later those of BRAC in Sylhet" Source: The Bangladesh Dichotomy and Politicisation of Culture by P. K. Bandyopadhyay. Page 57. Publisher B.R. Pub. Corp. (2004). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the following links will help you to get some perspective (of the big picture):
--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please find below additional references in which reputable authors have accredited that it was indeed Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan who pioneered the microcredit scheme. I hope that Wikipedia editors will accept these sources and give credit where it is due.

1) Dr. Larry Dossey wrote: "The idea of microcredit in its current form was introduced in 1959 by Dr Akhter Hameed Khan, founder of the East Pakistan Academy for Rural Development."

Source: Dossey, Larry. "The Peasant and the Professor: On Trust, Microcredit, and World Poverty." Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing. Vol. 3, Issue 5, September 2007. p. 435.

2) Richard E. Boyatzis, PhD and Masud Khawaja, MD Doctoral Student also cited Dossey and wrote: "As a result of the publicity that came with the Nobel prize, many people assume that Muhammad Yunus invented microcredit model for poor people. But the idea of microcredit, in its current form, was introduced in 1959 by Dr Akhtar Hameed Khan in the Comilla Project and then later used in the Orangi project."

Source: Boyatzis, Richard E. and Masud Khawaja. "Resonant Leaders Leveraging Community and Country Sustained, Desired Change: The Case of the Amazing Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan." Paper presented at the Business as an Agent of World Benefit, 2009 Virtual Global Forum.

(Richard E. Boyatzis, PhD Professor in Departments of Organizational Behavior, Psychology, and Cognitive Science, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. Masud Khawaja, MD Doctoral Student, Case Western Reserve University).

3) Microcapital Monitor (Mass., USA) wrote the following under “Pioneers in Microfinance” (under-written by Deutsche Bank): “Khan is the originator of two development exemplars: the Comilla Model and the Orangi Pilot Project…Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan helped lay the basic foundations of the microcredit movement through his work on the Comilla Model of rural development in the 1960s and the Orangi Pilot Project in the 1980s.”

Source: “Pioneers in Microfinance: Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan.” MicroCapital Monitor. Vol. 3, Issue 5, May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Before of this repeats over and over. These new sources don't look that great either - at least at a first glance. They are not exactly reputable peer reviewed economic/social/political journals or books. And they contradict other more reputable sources (like the encyclopedia britannica and others). Moreover the 3rd source basically describes the Khan's version of a microcredit as a form of cooperative banking, which has been around in the west since the 19th century (farmers and union banks), i.e. the "new" thing here is merely the application and adaption for the situation in Pakistan. As several other people here now have already told you - state your case here first and get the consent of other editors. As far as I'm concerned if you or somebody wants to write paragraph with on the detailed history of microcredit/microfinance from the 19th century until now, then Khan and his projects should be mentioned there along with various other developments and your sources might be sufficient for that. Based on the current sources however he does not belong in the article's lead/introduction.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Khan is the pioneer of microcredit. Editors must not delete the information. The sources given are credible. Editors are making unnecessary fuss about it. Look at other pages and the sources given. Sources given in regards to Dr. Khan are much more credible —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not delete Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan, pioneer of microcredit/microfinance —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan's works including pioneering microcredit is known all over the world. Editors must consult library and brush-up your knowledge about this legendary figure. Do not distort facts by deleting his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Read Nasim Yousaf's articles on Dr. Khan's web site . Mr. Yousaf is a historian and a well known scholar, you can send him a request to feed you information on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Younus - Yunus[edit]

muhammad yunus's name is spelt wrong in the article. it is spelt Younus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dell2boy (talkcontribs) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

according to Muhammad Yunus and a large number of sources yunus seems to be his common spelling in english at least and we should stick to that one in doubt.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Yunus is not the pioneer of microcredit. Prof Yunus took the idea from Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan's Comilla scheme and applied it. If Dr. Khan was alive Nobel Prize would have gone to him. The information on wikipedia is wrong. It must be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

not again - please give it rest.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Dr. Yunus’s debt to Akhtar Hameed Khan for micro-credit" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Locked? United Prosperity[edit]

Pfft.. if this article wasn't locked, I would have gone ahead and fixed the sentence in the United Prosperity section that reads, "...then lends that double that amount..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. There is a persistent roving IP who repeats the same argument and same additions without listening which is why I have had to semi protect. --BozMo talk 19:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad decision to lock the web site. I have read the discussion; it is bad not to credit Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan for pioneering the microcredit. I have recently come across this article. This might help Wikipedia editor to fix the error. "Dr. Akhtar Hameed Khan: An Inspirational Social Scientist". The article is on the internet ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rcb6, 27 November 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

I have spent the past few weeks working on editing the microcredit page. Here is the revised entry I have come up with. It is the original text with changes. I've included my sources at the end and used (source #) to identify them in the text. I have linked the new links I'm proposing, for additions to the text I have italicized. Hope this helps.

This article is specific to small loans. For financial services to the poor, see Microfinance. For small payments, see Micropayment. Microcredit is the extension of very small loans (microloans) to those in poverty designed to spur entrepreneurship. These individuals lack collateral, steady employment and a verifiable credit history and therefore cannot meet even the most minimal qualifications to gain access to traditional credit. (Source 1) These loans allow the poor to become a part of the free market, which had previously been denied to them. Microcredit is a part of microfinance, which is the structural network of banks and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) that provide the poor with microloans, microinsurance, microsavings, and other financial services. The modern invention of microloans is credited to St. Louis entrepreneur Menlo Smith who was struck by the abject poverty he saw in the Philippines and founded Enterprise Mentors International, which provides microenterprise training, mentoring, and microcredit to individuals in the Philippines, Guatemala, Peru, El Salvador and Honduras. (Source 2) Microcredit is a financial innovation that is generally considered to have originated with the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.[1] In Bangladesh and other countries, microcredit has successfully enabled extremely impoverished people to engage in self-employment projects that allow them to generate an income and, in many cases, begin to build wealth and exit poverty. (Source 3) Due to the success of microcredit, many in the traditional banking industry have begun to realize that these microcredit borrowers should more correctly be categorized as pre-bankable; thus, microcredit is increasingly gaining credibility in the mainstream finance industry, as seen by the fact that the total amount invested in microfinance doubled between 2004 and 2006, (Source 4) and many traditional large finance organizations are contemplating microcredit projects as a source of future growth, even though almost everyone in larger development organizations discounted the likelihood of success of microcredit when it was begun. However, this new growth of microcredit comes at a cost. These same finance organizations are operated for-profit and charge much higher interest rates, going against one of the founding principles of microcredit, to reduce poverty. (Source 5) The United Nations declared 2005 the International Year of Microcredit.

History Ideas relating to microcredit can be found at various times in modern history. Jonathan Swift inspired the Irish Loan Funds of the 18th and 19th centuries.[2] In the mid-19th century, Individualist anarchist Lysander Spooner wrote about the benefits of numerous small loans for entrepreneurial activities to the poor as a way to alleviate poverty.[3] Ideas relating to microcredit were mentioned in portions of the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II. (Source 6) The origins of microcredit in its current practical incarnation, with attention paid by economists and politicians worldwide, can be linked to several organizations founded in Bangladesh, especially the Grameen Bank in the 1970s and onward, for which its founder Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.[4] In addition to Yunus’ Grameen Bank, there have been other early experiments with microcredit, including Dr. Alhtar Hameed Khan’s ‘Comilla Model’ which distributed microcredit through local cooperatives, (Source 7) have helped expand microcredit to where it is today. Ever since Muhammad Yunus founded the Grameen Bank in the 1970s, microcredit has evolved. There has been a shift from ‘Old Wave’ to ‘New Wave’ microfinance, with the old wave, called ‘poverty lending’ described as donor subsidized, that it helps the poorest of the poor, and is financially unsustainable. The new wave model, called ‘financial systems’, rejects subsidies, seeks small to medium-sized enterprises, and is financially sustainable. This ‘new wave’ of microcredit began in the late 1980’s as financial institutions sought to make profits by providing credit to the poor while at the same time making it financially sustainable, a key aspect of neoliberalism. While the poor still have access to credit, the shift from poverty lending to financial systems has driven up interest rates and placed more of an emphasis on repayment of the loans rather than the welfare and economic well-being of the individual, which was one of the primary principles that microcredit was founded upon. (Source 24 and 25)

Principles Microcredit is based on a separate set of principles, which are distinguished from general financing or credit.[5] When the Grameen bank was founded, Yunus stressed low interest rates, the incorporation of solidarity circles, and a high value placed on the repayment of the loans, rather than just profits. (Source 8) Microcredit emphasizes building capacity of a micro-entrepreneur,[6] employment generation, (Source 9) trust building,[7] and help to the micro-entrepreneur on initiation and during difficult times (Source 10 and 11) These aspects of microcredit allow the poor to bring themselves out of poverty in a dignified way, (Source 12) rather than by just receiving aid money. Because of this empowerment aspect and the incorporation of solidarity circles, people who take out microcredit are much more likely to repay their debt. (Source 13) Microcredit is a tool for socioeconomic development.[8][9]

Strengths NO CHANGES In the past few years, savings-led microfinance has gained recognition as an effective way to bring very poor families low-cost financial services. For example, in India, the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) finances more than 500 banks that on-lend funds to self-help groups (SHGs). SHGs comprise twenty or fewer members, of whom the majorities are women from the poorest castes and tribes. Members save small amounts of money, as little as a few rupees a month in a group fund. Members may borrow from the group fund for a variety of purposes ranging from household emergencies to school fees. As SHGs prove capable of managing their funds well, they may borrow from a local bank to invest in small business or farm activities. Banks typically lend up to four rupees for every rupee in the group fund. Groups generally pay interest rates that range from 30% to 70% APR,[10] or 12% to 24% a year, based on the flat calculation method. Nearly 1.4 million SHGs comprising approximately 20 million women now borrow from banks, which make the Indian SHG-Bank Linkage model the largest microfinance program in the world. Similar programs are evolving in Africa and Southeast Asia with the assistance of organizations like Opportunity International, Catholic Relief Services, CARE, APMAS and Oxfam. Microfinancing also helps in the development of an economy by giving everyday people the chance to establish a sustainable means of income. Eventual increases in disposable income will lead to economic development and growth. Jason Cons and Kasia Paprocki of the Goldin Institute, while quite critical of some unintended side-effects of microcredit, nonetheless acknowledge its "enormous potential as a tool for poverty alleviation."[1]

Microcredit and the Web NO CHANGES The principles of microcredit have also been applied in attempting to address several non-poverty-related issues. Among these, multiple Internet-based organizations have developed platforms that facilitate a modified form of peer-to-peer lending where a loan is not made in the form of a single, direct loan, but as the aggregation of a number of smaller loans—often at a negligible interest rate. There are several ways by which the general public can participate in alleviating poverty using Web platforms. New platforms that connect lenders to micro-entrepreneurs are emerging on the Web, for example Kiva, Zidisha, Lend for Peace and the Microloan Foundation. Another WWW-based microlender United Prosperity uses a variation on the usual microlending model; with United Prosperity the micro-lender provides a guarantee to a local bank which then lends back double that amount to the micro-entrepreneur. United Prosperity claims this provides both greater leverage and allows the micro-entrepreneur to develop a credit history with their local bank for future loans. In 2009, the US-based nonprofit Zidisha became the first peer-to-peer microlending platform to link lenders and borrowers directly across international borders without local intermediaries.[11]

In the developed world Microcredit is not only provided in poor countries, but also in one of the world's richest countries, the USA, where 37 million people (12.6%) live below the poverty line.[12] Among other organizations that provide microloans in the United States,[13][14] Grameen Bank started their operation in New York in April 2008. According to economist Jonathan Morduch of New York University, microloans have less appeal in the US, because people think it is too difficult to escape poverty through private enterprise because these enterprises are usually very small and do not employ enough people to make a difference. (Source 14) Bank of America has announced plans to award more than $3.7 million in grants to nonprofits to use in backing microloan programs.[15] Other developed countries in which the micro-loan model is in fact gaining impetus include Israel,[16] Russia, the Ukraine and more, where micro-loans given to small business entrepreneurs are also used to overcome cultural barriers in the mainstream business society. The Israel Free Loan Association (IFLA) has lent out over $100 million in the past two decades to Israeli citizens of all backgrounds. (Source 15) Even so, efforts to replicate Grameen-style solidarity lending in developed countries have generally not succeeded. For example, the Calmeadow Foundation tested an analogous peer-lending model in three locations in Canada, rural Nova Scotia and urban Toronto and Vancouver, during the 1990s. It concluded that a variety of factors—including difficulties in reaching the target market, the high risk profile of clients, their general distaste for the joint liability requirement, and high overhead costs—made solidarity lending unviable without subsidies.[17]However, debates have continued about whether the required subsidies may be justified as an alternative to other subsidies targeted to the entrepreneurial poor, and VanCity Credit Union, which took over Calmeadow's Vancouver operations, continues to use peer lending, also referred to as circle lending. (Source 16) Some organizations, however, have been able to find success bringing the microfinance model to the United States. ACCION USA, which is the US subsidiary of the more well-known ACCION International, has been able to provide US$117 million in microloans since 1991, with an over 90% repayment rate. (Source 17)

Criticism See also: Microfinance#Other criticisms Gina Neff[18] of the Left Business Observer has described the microcredit movement as a privatization of public safety-net programs.[19]Enthusiasm for microcredit among government officials as an anti-poverty program can motivate cuts in public health, welfare, and education spending.[citation needed] Neff maintains that the success of the microcredit model has been judged disproportionately from a lender's perspective (repayment rates, financial viability) and not from that of the borrowers. For example, the Grameen Bank's high repayment rate does not reflect the number of women who are repeat borrowers that have become dependent on loans for household expenditures rather than capital investments. (Source 18) Studies of microcredit programs have found that women often act merely as collection agents for their husbands and sons, such that the men spend the money themselves while women are saddled with the credit risk.[1][20] As a result, borrowers are kept out of waged work and pushed into the informal economy. (Source 19) Many studies in recent years have shown that risks like sickness, natural disaster and over indebtedness are a critical dimension of poverty and that very poor people rely heavily on informal savings to manage these risks (see, for example, The Microfinance Revolution: Sustainable Finance for the Poor by Marguerite Robinson). It might be expected that microfinance institutions would provide safe, flexible savings services to this population, but—with notable exceptions like Grameen II—they have been very slow to do so. Some experts argue that most microcredit institutions are overly dependent on external capital. A study of microcredit institutions in Bolivia in 2003, for example, found that they were very slow to deliver quality microsavings services because of easy access to cheaper forms of external capital.[21] Global data tables from The Microbanking Bulletin show that savings represent a small source of funds for microcredit institutions in most developing nations.[citation needed] Because field officers are in a position of power locally and are judged on repayment rates as the primary metric of their success, they sometimes use coercive and even violent tactics to collect installments on the microcredit loans. Some loan recipients sink into a cycle of debt, using a microcredit loan from one organization to meet interest obligations from another.[1] Also, counter to the original intention of the microcredit system to empower women, one of the effects of an infusion of cash into local economies has been to increase dowries, with women forced at times to take microcredit loans as the only means to pay these increased dowries for their daughters.[1]

One of the major purported benefits of microcredit is the empowerment of women; however, this does not always appear to be the case. It is thought that by allowing women, the recipients of most microloans, to achieve financial stability by giving them access to credit would lead to their empowerment and independence from male family members, but this is not the case. Women who take out loans often lose access and control to this money because their male family members take the money away, defeating the purpose of gender empowerment. (Source 20) The root of this issue lies in the misunderstanding of gender relations in the households of developing countries, a topic which has been studied in both Bangladesh and Malawi by Naila Kabeer and Susan Johnson, respectively. (Source 21 and 22) A few proposed solutions to the problem of men taking away their wives microloans include ideas for safe-deposit boxes and savings accounts for women that only they have access to. (Source 23) With these measures in place, women might be able to keep the money for themselves and make use of it, helping to draw themselves out of poverty, hopefully with a sense of dignity and respect.

Bangladesh's former Finance and Planning Minister M. Saifur Rahman charges that some microfinance institutions use excessive interest rates.[22] In recent years, there has been increasing attention paid to the problem of interest rate disclosure, as many suppliers of microcredit quote their rates to clients using the flat calculation method, which significantly understates the true Annual Percentage Rate.[citation needed] The BBC Business Weekly program reported that much of the supposed benefits associated with microfinance, are perhaps not as compelling as once thought. In a radio interview with Professor Dean Karlan of Yale University, a point was raised concerning a comparison between two groups: one African, financed through microcredit and one control group in the Philippines. The results of this study suggest that many of the benefits from microcredit are in fact loaned to people with existing business, and not to those seeking to establish new businesses. Many of those receiving microcredit also used the loans to supplement the family income. The income that went up in business was true only for men, and not for women. This is striking because one of the supposed major beneficiaries of microfinance is supposed to be targeted at women. Professor Karlan's conclusion was that whilst microcredit is not necessarily bad and can generate some positive benefits, despite some lenders charging interest rates between 40-60%, it isn't the panacea that is purported to be. He advocates rather than focusing strictly on microcredit, also giving citizens in poor countries access to rudimentary and cheap savings accounts.[23]

Role of developing countries—a recent Forbes ranking NO CHANGE The US business magazine Forbes ranked the world's top 50 microfinance institutions. Forbes made the ranking of MRIs by using data available from the Microfinance Information Exchange and the analysis from rating firms Micro-Credit Ratings International Limited and MicroRate. The ranking was based on six key variables: gross loan portfolio, operating expense, operating expense divided by the average number of active borrowers as a proportion of gross national income per capita, outstanding balance of loans overdue by more than 30 days as a proportion of gross loan portfolio, return on assets, and return on equity. "Each microfinance institution earned scores in four equally weighted categories—scale, efficiency, portfolio risk and profitability. Rankings were then based on the combined average score of those four categories."[24] India and Bangladesh together are home to the most MFIs. Seven of the 50 were little-known institutions from India. Those in other countries included five from Bosnia and Herzegovina, four each from Morocco and Peru, three from Colombia, two each from Ecuador, Ethiopia and Serbia, and one each from 15 other countries, including Russia, Pakistan, Mexico and Brazil. Forbes magazine said that "microfinance has become a buzzword of the decade, raising the provocative notion that even philanthropy aimed at alleviating poverty can be profitable to institutional and individual investors." "Billionaires, global leaders and Nobel Prize recipients are hailing these direct loans to uncollateralized would-be entrepreneurs as a way to lift them out of poverty while creating self-sustaining businesses," it stated.

1. ^ a b c d e Jason Cons and Kasia Paprocki of the Goldin Institute, "The Limits of Microcredit—A Bangladeshi Case", Food First Backgrounder(Institute for Food and Development Policy), Winter 2008, volume 14, number 4. 2. ^ University of Calgary 3. ^ 4. ^ 5. ^ 6. ^ 7. ^ 8. ^ SSRN-Micro Finance: The Pillars of a Tool to Socio-Economic Development by Vrajlal Sapovadia 9. ^ Sapovadia, Vrajlal K., "Micro Finance: The Pillars of a Tool to Socio-Economic Development" . Development Gateway, 2006 10. ^ [1] 11. ^ "Zidisha Set to "Expand" in Peer-to-Peer Microfinance", Microfinance Focus, Feb 2010 12. ^ 13. ^ 14. ^ University of Michigan 15. ^ [2] 16. ^ (Hebrew) 17. ^ Cheryl Frankiewicz. "Calmeadow Metrofund: A Canadian Experiment in Sustainable Microfinance", Calmeadow Foundation, April 2001. 18. ^ 19. ^ Microcredit, microresults The Left Business Observer #74, October 1996 20. ^ Goetz, A.M. and R. Sen Gupta. "Who takes the Credit? Gender, power and control over loan use in rural credit programmes in Bangladesh."World Development Vol. 24, January 1995. 21. ^ Hillary Miller. The paradox of savings mobilization in microfinance: why microfinance institutions in Bolivia have virtually ignored savings. Development Alternatives Inc. and USAID, Washington, 2003. 22. ^ Saifur takes swipe at micro-credit 23. ^ 24. ^

Source 1: Source 2:

Source 3:

Source 4: Surowiecki, James. “What Microloans Miss.” The New Yorker, (Accessed March 31, 2008). Source 5: Bateman, Milford. 2010. Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work?: The Destructive Rise of Local Neoliberalism, New York: Zed Books. (Chapter 3) Source 6:

Source 7: Bateman, Milford. 2010. Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work?: The Destructive Rise of Local Neoliberalism, New York: Zed Books. (Chapter 2) Source 8: Bateman, Milford. 2010. Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work?: The Destructive Rise of 5Local Neoliberalism, New York: Zed Books. (Chapter 2) Source 9: Source 10: Source 11: Source 12: Source 13: Bateman, Milford. 2010. Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work?: The Destructive Rise of Local Neoliberalism, New York: Zed Books. (Chapter 2) Source 14: Surowiecki, James. “What Microloans Miss.” The New Yorker, (Accessed March 31, 2008). Source 15: Source 16: Source 17: Source 18: Bateman, Milford. 2010. Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work?: The Destructive Rise of Local Neoliberalism, New York: Zed Books. (Chapter 3) Source 19: Parmar, Aradhana. 2003. “Microcredit, Empowerment, and Agency: Re-evaluating the Discourse.” Canadian Journal of Development Studies 24 (3): 461-76. Source 20: Goetz, A. and R.S. Gupta (1996). “Who takes the credit? Gender, power and control over loan use in rural credit programs in Bangladesh.” World Development 24(1): 45-63. Source 21: Kabeer, N. (2001). “Conflicts over credit: Re-evaluating the Empowerment Potential of Loans to Women in Rural Bangladesh.” World Development 29(1): 63-84. Source 22: Johnson, S. (2005). “Gender relations, empowerment and microcredit: moving on from a lost decade.” European Journal of Development Research 17(2): 224-248. Source 23: Vonderlack, R. and Schreiner, M. (2001). “Women, Microfinance, and Savings: Lessons and Proposals.” Development in Practice 12(5): 602-612. Source 24: World Survey 2009. “Access to Financial Resources, including Microfinance.” Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for the Advancement of Women. Source 25: Bateman, Milford. 2010. Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work?: The Destructive Rise of Local Neoliberalism, New York: Zed Books. (Chapter 2)

Rcb6 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It's unclear what exactly needs to be changed. Replied on user talk. -Atmoz (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Rcb6 (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please Help me make these changes[edit]

Over the past few weeks, I have been working on making the microcredit page even better. I have made extensive edits to the Intro, History, and Principles sections. I have found references for many of the “citation needed” sentences and include all the sources. In addition, I have added a paragraph under the Criticisms section that explains the role gender empowerment plays in microcredit. I understand that there is much contention around the subject of microcredit and I have therefore tried to make my edits as impartial as I could. I am submitting my changes using ‘edit request’ because I am not a registered user as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcb6 (talkcontribs) 21:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied on user talk suggesting a draft in userspace. -Atmoz (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Rcb6 (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


Looks like the article is very biased since it doesn't mention the hundreds of suicides caused by the practice. It is very easy to find references, e.g. (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Suicide may well be more common among people with financial problems. Alas, that news article is more interested in an attention-grabbing headline; it doesn't discuss how many people might have committed suicide because they were in financial difficulties and no microcredit was available. I doubt that suicide was an unknown phenomenon among poverty-stricken rural Indians of the 1960s and 1970s. bobrayner (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 4 January 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} I would suggest removing the reference to "those in poverty" made on the opening statement, as it might hurt sensibilies. Instead, I feel that the description that follows would, just be itself, be accurate enough to convey what is the real financial capability of the loan requestor.

The change would therefore read:

BEFORE: Microcredit is the extension of very small loans (microloans) to those in poverty designed to spur entrepreneurship. These individuals lack collateral, steady employment and a verifiable credit history and therefore cannot meet even the most minimal qualifications to gain access to traditional credit

AFTER: Microcredit is the extension of very small loans (microloans) designed to spur entrepeneurship among individuals lacking collateral, steady employment and a verifiable credit history and who therefore cannot meet even the most minimal qualifications to gain access to traditional credit (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done, sorry, I'm seeing "poor" as being one of the requirements for the loan. [5], [6], [7], among others. CTJF83 chat 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Addition to 'strength' and 'criticism' section[edit]

Strength and criticism section needs to have more substantive materials that can appropriately support microcredit in depth.

According to Bateman, microfinance leads to higher income and employment, alternative to loan shark, empowerment of women, consumption smoothing, and social solidarity[1] . Especially for the women empowerment aspect--stemming from the fact that 76% of the women are clients of microfinance institution[2] --, it plays a significant role in their economic, political, and social empowerment. According to Goetz and Gupta, microcredit helps to increase women employment in small-scale enterprise, adoption of technology to enhance the productivity of women's home-based activity, improve women’s health, nutritional, education status, and credit represents the women’s economic empowerment and status within family. So it would be good to add to these impact on society[3] .

But of course, a lot of scholars criticize emphasizing the only positive impact that microcredit system has on the society and thus, for the criticism section, limitations of microcredit should be added. According to Bateman, loans are usually spent on consumption spending, rather than entrepreneurship work[4]. Also, women can face the situation that they have to depend on men when they don’t generate enough income. This can lead to gendered pattern of dependency and new source of tension as they’re in a situation of asking that they weren’t used to before. It is also likely that women encounters pressures to apply for loans and give over their loans to their husbands or male relatives.

Chloe.s.kwon (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Additions to "History" and "Principles" section[edit]

The "History" and "Principles" sections of the article must be expanded in regard to the roots and evolution of microcredit as a means of alleviating poverty.

The "History" portion needs to include the emergence of modern microcredit, led by Akhtar Hameed Khan, in East Pakistan during the 1950s. Khan relied upon the 'Comila Model' of microcredit, in which credit is distributed through community initiatives.[5] . The use of women only "solidarity circles" in Jobra during the 1970s deserves note as an indicator of early preference towards loaning to women among microcredit organizations.[6] . Indeed, women continue to make up approximately seventy six percent of microcredit clients.[7] .

The first thing the "Principles" page needs to include is Muhammand Yunus' idea that every person has to potential to be an entrepreneur, and that low interest rates were the key to micro lending.[8] The "Principles" section also deserves discussion regarding the influence of neoliberal economic ideology upon microcredit, and the subsequent "financial systems approach" to microcredit evident around the globe by the 1990s. The character and impact of microcredit has been significantly influenced by the "financial systems approach," as Microcredit Institutions run on profits from interest rates, contradicting Yunus' original claim that repayment rates remain low. Compartamos and Accion serve as examples of the evolving nature of microcredit institutions in Mexico.[9] Scholars argue over the impact neoliberalism has had on the impacts of microcredit.[10] .

  1. ^ Bateman (2010). Why Doesn't Microfinance Work?: The Destructive Rise of Local Neoliberalism. Zed Books (. ISBN 9781848133327. 
  2. ^ Microcredit summit. 1999.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ goetz (1996). Who takes the credit. 24.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ Bateman. Why Doesn’t Microfinance Work?: The Destructive Rise of Local Neoliberalism.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  5. ^ Bateman, Milford (2010). Why Doesn't Microfinance Work?. Zed Books. 
  6. ^ Bateman, Milford (2010). Why Doesn't Microfinance Work?. Zed Books. 
  7. ^ Microcredit Summit. 1996.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. ^ Bateman, Milford (2010). Why Doesn't Microfinance Work?. Zed Books. 
  9. ^ Bateman, Milford (2010). Why Doesn't Microfinance Work?. Zed Books. p. 256. 
  10. ^ Hulme, David (2009). Microfinance: A Reader. Routledge. p. 256. ISBN 0415375320, 9780415375320 Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help). 

17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Forbes Ranking Section[edit]

I deleted the section entitled "Role in the developing world-A recent Forbes ranking" because the section was biased in favor of microcredit institutions, and did not provide appropriate evidence for claims about the role of microcredit in the developing world. Furthermore, Forbes is not an appropriate source for reliable information regarding microcredit and hence does not deserve its own section in this article.

FrancescaSchley (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Droodman, 18 April 2011[edit]

Cut this: "The modern invention of microloans is credited to St. Louis entrepreneur Menlo Smith who was struck by the abject poverty he saw in the Philippines."

I am an authority on the history of microcredit ( This sentence is simply wrong.

Droodman (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. The sentence had a citation needed tag for six months. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Insufficient Sourcing Still[edit]

The references of this article are still rather shoddy state in many cases. Aside from some raw urls there are also books cited without providing page number. Even worse a first check with one of those cited books (The Economics of Microfinance) seems to reveal that the content sourced with it, does not exist in that book at all (Comila Model and Khan's contribution). The books is available at Google books at least: [8]. Judging from this example I'm afraid all the citations need to be checked by other (reliable) editors in detail.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 4 August 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} In the Criticisms portion of "Microcredit," some Internet sources have been moved or removed. On that has been moved is the citation for the sentence "Also, there are criticisms over microfinance institutions (MFIs) in creating small-debt traps for the poor with high interest rates and coercive methods of recovery" I was wondering if the url, which no longer exists due to website updates, could be switched to the new url "" Thanks!

Shukie (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Serious Company?[edit]

I doubt that iMicroInvest is an honest company. On their homepage, it is only possible to donate to them, not to any specific projects. Can somebody registered remove the link or check them? Thx newuserbausb — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge impact of microfinance and impact of microcredit[edit]

I suggest to merge the sections on impact of the articles Microfinance and Microcredit. While microfinance, which also includes savings and insurance, is a broader topic than microcredit, the literature on the impact of microfinance is almost exclusively focused on microcredit. Having two separate, but very similar sections, leads to a situation where edits are being done on both pages and it makes it more difficult to ensure that improvements to one article are included in the other. Therefore I suggest to merge the two sections in a new article and to include "For more details" redirects in the respective sections of the two articles.--Mschiffler (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Wall-street style scandal involving the Mexican microcredit organization Compartamos"?[edit]

The 2nd para of Microcredit#Economic principles refers to "a Wall-street style scandal involving the Mexican microcredit organization Compartamos", (giving a reference not available on line). However, there is no mention of a scandal in Compartamos Banco. Presumably, one of the articles should be amended. Does anyone know which? Enginear (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Grameen Bank was founded in 1983[edit]

Grameen Bank Project was started by Yunus in 1976, but the Bank was founded as an institution in 1983.Wetlandap (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Islam's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Islam has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Add this line after note 4: the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner was Professor Yunus and the Grameen Bank (GB), which Yunus founded.

Update Duflo's paper- as it is published now:

Banerjee, Abhijit, Esther Duflo, Rachel Glennerster and Cynthia Kinnan (2015), “The miracle of microcredit? Evidence from a randomized evaluation”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 7(1), 22-53.

At the end of the introduction but before history: add the following

A number of studies using data from Bangladesh have found that microcredit leads to an improvement in consumption smoothing and asset building1, reduction in household vulnerability in response to health and income shocks (Pitt and Khandker 1998, Islam and Maitra 2012, Islam 2015), and improved health and nutrition (Pitt et al. 2003). It seems clear that higher benefits from microcredit are likely to accrue from long-term participation in such programmes (Islam 2011).

Islam, Asadul (2011), “Medium- and Long-Term Participation in Microcredit: An Evaluation Using a New Panel Dataset from Bangladesh”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(3), 843-862. Islam, Asadul and Pushkar Maitra (2012), “Health Shocks and Consumption Smoothing in Rural Households: Does Microcredit have a Role to Play?”, Journal of Development Economics, 97(2), 232-243. Islam, Asadul (2015), “Heterogeneous Impacts of Microcredit: Evidence from Large Scale Programs in Bangladesh”, Journal of Asian Economics, 37:48-58, 2015 Islam, A, C Maitra, D Pakrashi and R Smyth (2016), ‘Microcredit Program Participation and Household Food Security in Rural Bangladesh´,67(2): 448–470. Pitt, Mark M and Shahidur R Khandker (1998), „The Impact of Group-Based Credit Programs on Poor Households in Bangladesh: Does the Gender of the Participant Matter?”, The Journal of Political Economy, 106, 958–996. Pitt, Mark M, Shahidur R Khandker, Omar Haidar Chowdhury and Daniel L Millimet (2003), “Credit Programs for the Poor and the Health Status of Children in Rural Bangladesh”, International Economic Review, 44 (February), 87–118.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Islam has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

  • Reference : Asadul Islam & Debayan Pakrashi, 2014. "The Microcredit Puzzle: Labour Supply Behaviour of Rural Households in Bangladesh," Monash Economics Working Papers 24-14, Monash University, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Microcredit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)